Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe appellant, a Madhya Pradesh government undertaking set up to develop industrial growth centres, was granted registration as a charitable entity under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in 1999. In 2002 the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cancelled that registration. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the cancellation, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed the Tribunal and restored the CIT's cancellation, relying on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act as the source of the CIT's power to cancel.
The Supreme Court held that, at the relevant time (before 01.10.2004), there was no express statutory power under Section 12A allowing the CIT to cancel a registration once granted: that power was only expressly introduced later through Section 12AA(3), inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, and operating prospectively. The Court further held that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act (a general power to rescind "notifications, rules or orders") could not be used to support cancellation of a Section 12A registration because such registration is a quasi-judicial order, not a legislative or executive one, and quasi-judicial orders cannot be undone this way absent fraud or an express statutory power. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Tribunal's order restoring the registration was reinstated, while clarifying the CIT remains free to use the post-2004 power prospectively if grounds exist.
A government authority cannot informally "borrow" a general rescission power (like Section 21 of the General Clauses Act) to undo a quasi-judicial decision it had no express statutory power to reverse at the time, and a law granting a new power to an authority normally applies only going forward, not backward.
